Could you predict everything that will ever happen given sufficient computing power and current knowledge?

Read this and get back with us:

http://www.amazon.com/The-Foundation-Trilogy-Isaac-Asimov/dp/B0007EXGJ6

As far as we know, particle radiation is completely random i.e. unpredictable in the short run, so no not with current knowledge.

If we discovered that we can predict everything then yes. But your prediction machine must be isolated from the system you are trying to predict.

No for multiple reasons. One of them is quantum mechanics.

i believe there are not enough atoms in universe to compute every "best move" chess game on a hard-drive ?!

i read somewhere about quantum computing building hugely more developed computers which may get you close to above ?!

then i think, it is planck-length which limits size of anything ??!!

therefore, even if you think there are helluva lot of quantum particles to build a huge quantum computer, i assume they must have a size > planck-length to have existence

therefore, even "ultimate" quantum computer might struggle to

"work-out chess"

your question is better asked :

"can a computer beat me in chess if it can only rely on calculating every possible game from my either

e4 or d4

???"

ventolin^3 wrote:

"can a computer beat me in chess if it can only rely on calculating every possible game from my either

e4 or d4

???"

i must admit, i'd add in c4, as lotta games won from there !

ventolin^3 wrote:

i believe there are not enough atoms in universe to compute every "best move" chess game on a hard-drive ?!

The problem with just three objects is unsolvable:

chess is no 3-body problem

if / when a computer can tell me whether

e4

or

d4

is history decided now? wrote:

Could you predict everything that will ever happen given sufficient computing power and current knowledge?

The key word here is "sufficient". Sufficient for what? From your sentence construction one is forced to conclude "sufficient" to predict everything that will ever happen. As a result there can be only one answer - Yes!

Now, is it possible to possess sufficient computing power? That is a different question.

Key Word Noter wrote:

is history decided now? wrote:

Could you predict everything that will ever happen given sufficient computing power and current knowledge?

The key word here is "sufficient". Sufficient for what? From your sentence construction one is forced to conclude "sufficient" to predict everything that will ever happen. As a result there can be only one answer - Yes!

There is only one possible answer and it is No! The amount of available computing power does not matter.

Key Word Noter wrote:

is history decided now? wrote:

Could you predict everything that will ever happen given sufficient computing power and current knowledge?

The key word here is "sufficient". Sufficient for what? From your sentence construction one is forced to conclude "sufficient" to predict everything that will ever happen. As a result there can be only one answer - Yes!

Not necessarily, not every problem is "turing complete"

Blah Blah Blah Blah wrote:

Key Word Noter wrote:

The key word here is "sufficient". Sufficient for what? From your sentence construction one is forced to conclude "sufficient" to predict everything that will ever happen. As a result there can be only one answer - Yes!

There is only one possible answer and it is No! The amount of available computing power does not matter.

You fail to understand simple English. That's a shame.

The question is roughly the same as this:

"If I trained hard enough could I develop a vertical leap sufficient to jump up and touch the moon?"

The answer is indisputably "Yes".

Otherwise you are saying that:

"If I trained hard enough to develop a vertical leap sufficient to jump up and touch the moon I could not develop a vertical leap sufficient to jump up and touch the moon."

- which is obviously FALSE.)

It is also true that it is impossible to train hard enough.

Try thinking first, then posting.

HardLoper wrote:

Key Word Noter wrote:

The key word here is "sufficient". Sufficient for what? From your sentence construction one is forced to conclude "sufficient" to predict everything that will ever happen. As a result there can be only one answer - Yes!

Not necessarily, not every problem is "turing complete"

Not relevant.

Key Word Noter wrote:

You fail to understand simple English. That's a shame.

The question is roughly the same as this:

"If I trained hard enough could I develop a vertical leap sufficient to jump up and touch the moon?"

The answer is indisputably "Yes".

Otherwise you are saying that:

"If I trained hard enough to develop a vertical leap sufficient to jump up and touch the moon I could not develop a vertical leap sufficient to jump up and touch the moon."

- which is obviously FALSE.)

It is also true that it is impossible to train hard enough.

Try thinking first, then posting.

No, because computing power isn't the only factor that would limit your ability to predict future events. A model won't be perfectly predictive if physical properties are not predictable, regardless of computing power. This is what I'm asking about. I'm asking whether physical properties are predictable if we're not limited by processing power. If any given property cannot be predicted, we could have infinite processing power and still be unable to model it.

is history decided now? wrote:we could have infinite processing power and still be unable to model it.

eh ???

what part of

planck-length

can't you comprehend ???

So, you are saying that infinite processing power would not be sufficient?

It seems as if you have proven my point.

Key Word Noter wrote:

is history decided now? wrote:

No, because computing power isn't the only factor that would limit your ability to predict future events. A model won't be perfectly predictive if physical properties are not predictable, regardless of computing power. This is what I'm asking about. I'm asking whether physical properties are predictable if we're not limited by processing power. If any given property cannot be predicted, we could have infinite processing power and still be unable to model it.

So, you are saying that infinite processing power would not be sufficient?

It seems as if you have proven my point.

Infinite processing power would be neither sufficient nor insufficient. It would be irrelevant.

Key Word Noter wrote:

So, you are saying that infinite processing power would not be sufficient?

It seems as if you have proven my point.

Right, because something other than processing power could limit your ability to predict. Seems simple to me.

OK. Another reason you can't is because of the Heisenberg uncertainty principle. It is impossible to measure a particle's exact position and momentum. Making it impossible to import the starting conditions to your computer.

ventolin^3 wrote:

is history decided now? wrote:Right, because something other than processing power could limit your ability to predict. Seems simple to me.

how stoopid are you ???

we can't have infinite ram/gig/etc

It's a hypothetical question, dude. Calm down.